We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 157

A question of financial standing in the PQQ

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • December 3 2012

In a recent Court of Justice case the North Transdanubia Environmental Protection and Water Management Directorate (the “Contracting Authority”) had launched a restricted procedure for awarding a public contract for transport infrastructure works worth approximately 23m

What did European Dynamics ever do for us? Or 10 lessons in procurement basics

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • October 24 2012

When the question “What have the Romans ever done for us?” was posed by the People’s Front of Judea in Monty Python’s Life of Brian there quickly followed a long list of benefits ranging from wine to public order

Procurement: a new trap?

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 4 2012

The hullabaloo surrounding the award of the west coast mainline franchise is a reminder that procurement can be a tricky business

What information must you give to unsuccessful tenderers?

  • Mason Hayes & Curran
  • -
  • European Union, Ireland
  • -
  • August 24 2012

The Irish Remedies Regulations require public bodies to notify in writing each unsuccessful tenderer of the characteristics and relative advantages of the tenders selected; and the name of the successful tenderer or, in the case of a framework agreement, the parties to it

Clarifications and abnormally low tenders

  • Mason Hayes & Curran
  • -
  • European Union, Ireland, United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 24 2012

A frequent issue is whether a public body can, or must, get clarification from a tenderer on aspects of its tender. In a recent case SAG (C-59910)1, the European Court of Justice was asked whether a contracting authority may or must seek clarification from a tenderer where the contracting authority is of the view that the tender submitted by a tenderer is abnormally low or imprecise or does not meet the technical specifications

General counsel update: 31 May 2012

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • Argentina, China, European Union, Hong Kong, Singapore, Spain, United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 31 2012

This is the twenty-ninth in our series of General Counsel Updates which aim to summarise major developments in key areas

Requirements to use specific eco-labels breach procurement rules

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • European Union, Netherlands
  • -
  • April 2 2012

In relation to an action brought by the European Commission alleging that the Netherlands is in breach of its obligations under Directive 200418 concerning the award by the Province of Noord-Holland of a public contract for the supply and management of coffee machines

EU General Court annuls decision of EU Council

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • April 2 2012

The General Court annulled a decision of the Council of the European Union to reject a tender on the basis that the Council had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision

EU General Court dismisses appeal against EU Commission procurement process

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • April 2 2012

The General Court dismissed an appeal by the Greek company Evropaiki Dynamiki against a European Commission procurement process for the supply of IT services to maintain and develop information systems for the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

Scope of defence derogation considered

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • April 2 2012

In relation to the scope of the defence derogation from the procurement rules for objects which for have a specific military purpose, but can also be used for largely identical technical applications in the civilian market, the Advocate General concluded that the defence derogation cannot apply for items which are to be used for specific military purposes, but which objectively are no different from similar items used in the civilian sector